Delhi High Court refused to grant Interim injunction to the patent holder on the ground that it failed to show use of the patented invention for commercial purpose. 

The Plaintiff in this case* claimed to be the holder of a patent in device for production of heating, cooling and aromatic effects corresponding to the scene appearing in movie being commonly termed as 4D effects. It was contended by the Plaintiff that the Defendants were infringing the said patent in their 4D theatre/movie device which produced aromatic, cooling and other effects corresponding to the scene appearing in a movie/theatre. The Defendant challenged the validity of the Plaintiff's patent on the ground that 1) the patent claimed to have been invented by the plaintiff is neither an invention nor is innovation attributable to the plaintiff 2) the patent claimed is a prior art and was available in public domain for several decades and no one can claim monopoly over the same 3) the Defendant's device functions in a totally different manner and there was no similarity between the patent of the Plaintiff and the work of the Defendant. 

The court while observing that the Defendant's system produced the same effects such as the Plaintiff's, opined that mere showing of such claims cannot raise presumption of infringement, unless the Plaintiff can demonstrate that the Defendant produced same effect using substantially similar means. The court on considering claims noted that no exclusivity in respect of process for producing effects has been granted to Plaintiff and the only exclusivity is restricted to the particular device. 

The court noted that there was no material on record to establish that the Plaintiff had actually used the patented invention commercially or licensed it to anyone. Thus the Plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction. The court further gave importance to the fact that the Defendant had been manufacturing and supplying equipment to various persons/companies since 2003 and had made considerable investment in the business therefore balance of convenience was in favour of the Defendant.